MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com [1]

MCW, Inc., a company providing career counseling under the trademark "Bernard Haldane," sued Badbusinessbureau.com, LLC ("BBB") and Edward Magedson in Texas federal [2] court for unfair competition and false advertising under the Lanham Act and trademark infringement and business disparagement under Texas law.  The lawsuit revolved around negative reports about Bernard Haldane services published on the Ripoff Report [3] website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. 

The complaint [4] alleged that BBB and Magedson posted user reports containing false and defamatory statements about MCW's business, independently created defamatory titles, headings, and editorial comments, and used MCW's trademark in conjunction with the offering and selling of banner advertisements, third-party services, rebuttal and collection fees, and "Rip-Off Revenge" services. 

BBB and Magedson moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [5] (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for publishing third-party content, that they did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion, and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the parties' services. 

In ruling on the motion [6], the court held that CDA 230 did not bar MCW's claim because it had alleged that BBB and Magedson created false and defamatory report titles, headings, and other editorial content.  It also determined that BBB and Magedson lost immunity by soliciting a consumer to create disparaging material.  Nevertheless, the court dismissed the federal unfair competition and false advertising claims, concluding that MCW lacked standing, that it could not show a likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, and that Ripoff Report did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion.  The court then declined to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.

MCW appealed the ruling, but later voluntarily dismissed its appeal.